Every one of the 25 or so presidential appearances I have seen begins like this: The candidate thanks local volunteers, gushing about "my good friend So-and-so", then boasts about how early they started coming to New Hampshire and how many times they have been to this splendid state.
The numbers are high. For example Donald Trump has been there 23 times, Carson 27, Jeb Bush 59, Christ Christie 112, Lindsey Graham 162. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have each had 53 events, as of yesterday.
Is this totally crazy- a two year of campaign?
Having seen it up close I have decided that it isn't crazy. It actually serves a good purpose.
A long campaign gives voters time to see how candidates handle the unexpected. It turns out that candidate speeches are a poor way to find out meaningful things about a candidate because speeches are just applause machines. The Democratic candidates speeches differ in tone (Bernie cranky and forthright, Hillary earnest) but their policy planks sound eerily alike. Each have honed their speeches to create applause: recovery of the economy and home prices, assist the middle class, affordable college, refinance college loans, protect Social Security and Medicare, end tax loopholes for billionaires.
Same thing with the Republicans. Again, the tone differs, (Trump and Christie blunt, Bush and Kasich frustrated, Carly and Rubio eloquent and polished, Carson quiet) but the message and applause lines are the same: Obama is weak, the economy is terrible, unemployment is high, cut personal and corporate taxes, balance the budget, increase the military, stop abortions, defund Planned Parenthood, support Israel, end same sex marriage.
We tell candidates apart from how they handle events, not their speeches. Who calls for stopping world trade when there are two American cases of ebola? Whose staff quits suddenly and says their candidate is unteachable? When there's a bomb in Paris who says to pause on considering taking new refugees, who says to stop refugees outright, who says to give them a religious test, who says to implement a government registry of all American Muslims?
Long campaigns are a great equalizer, and give the little guy a fighting chance to make a mark. A candidate needs few enough votes to be a "winner" in New Hampshire through the force of energy, ideas with appeal, and time. McCain did, in 2008. A Republican candidate will need about 25,000 votes to get 10% of the Republican vote in 2016, and any candidate who gets 10% will be declared a top contender, and move on to South Carolina with real momentum. For reference, Colleen Roberts got 40,000 votes in her successful Jackson County Commissioner race. Heck, back in 1980 I got 27,000 votes when I was elected County Commissioner, and you bet I walked door to door. A Republican presidential candidate who gets 40,000 votes may well be the first place winner.
Real democracy in the form of face to face meetings, answering questions, handshakes and photo "selfies" is happening right now in New Hampshire and Iowa. It is nice to have a billionaire backer, but even without one a candidate can meet 25,000 people, if they have time to do it.
Long campaigns give the public a chance to evaluate character and it gives candidates a chance to make their case. Even the candidates who have dropped out had their shot: Perry 75 events in New Hampshire, Walker 32, Jindal 22. They had a shot. That is all anyone can ask for.
The numbers are high. For example Donald Trump has been there 23 times, Carson 27, Jeb Bush 59, Christ Christie 112, Lindsey Graham 162. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have each had 53 events, as of yesterday.
Is this totally crazy- a two year of campaign?
Having seen it up close I have decided that it isn't crazy. It actually serves a good purpose.
A long campaign gives voters time to see how candidates handle the unexpected. It turns out that candidate speeches are a poor way to find out meaningful things about a candidate because speeches are just applause machines. The Democratic candidates speeches differ in tone (Bernie cranky and forthright, Hillary earnest) but their policy planks sound eerily alike. Each have honed their speeches to create applause: recovery of the economy and home prices, assist the middle class, affordable college, refinance college loans, protect Social Security and Medicare, end tax loopholes for billionaires.
Same thing with the Republicans. Again, the tone differs, (Trump and Christie blunt, Bush and Kasich frustrated, Carly and Rubio eloquent and polished, Carson quiet) but the message and applause lines are the same: Obama is weak, the economy is terrible, unemployment is high, cut personal and corporate taxes, balance the budget, increase the military, stop abortions, defund Planned Parenthood, support Israel, end same sex marriage.
We tell candidates apart from how they handle events, not their speeches. Who calls for stopping world trade when there are two American cases of ebola? Whose staff quits suddenly and says their candidate is unteachable? When there's a bomb in Paris who says to pause on considering taking new refugees, who says to stop refugees outright, who says to give them a religious test, who says to implement a government registry of all American Muslims?
Long campaigns are a great equalizer, and give the little guy a fighting chance to make a mark. A candidate needs few enough votes to be a "winner" in New Hampshire through the force of energy, ideas with appeal, and time. McCain did, in 2008. A Republican candidate will need about 25,000 votes to get 10% of the Republican vote in 2016, and any candidate who gets 10% will be declared a top contender, and move on to South Carolina with real momentum. For reference, Colleen Roberts got 40,000 votes in her successful Jackson County Commissioner race. Heck, back in 1980 I got 27,000 votes when I was elected County Commissioner, and you bet I walked door to door. A Republican presidential candidate who gets 40,000 votes may well be the first place winner.
Real democracy in the form of face to face meetings, answering questions, handshakes and photo "selfies" is happening right now in New Hampshire and Iowa. It is nice to have a billionaire backer, but even without one a candidate can meet 25,000 people, if they have time to do it.
Long campaigns give the public a chance to evaluate character and it gives candidates a chance to make their case. Even the candidates who have dropped out had their shot: Perry 75 events in New Hampshire, Walker 32, Jindal 22. They had a shot. That is all anyone can ask for.
1 comment:
Comment by Al Densmore. Republican. Former State Representative. Former Mayor of Medford. Leader in establishing the Bear Creek Greenway.
Thank you Peter, my friend for your blog and your dedication to informing us about the hardy band of souls who want to be our next President. By this comment it is causing me to break the rule that Sally and I have established not to pay any attention to the Presidential election until the year of the election. Without drawing Sally into the discussion I disagree with your position. I don’t think long presidential campaigns are ok. I believe they are bad for our country and its future.
I didn’t always feel this way. My interest in politics dates back to my freshman year in high school and the election of John Kennedy in 1960. Presidential campaigns in those days were not quite as long, had fewer state primary elections and did not involve the astronomic requirements for paid staff, consultants, advertising and other overhead. Candidates like Sen. Kennedy stayed in private homes and they campaigned in most states like they always have in New Hampshire. Candidates learned about the unique issues in nearly every state the way you are seeing in New Hampshire this year. Oregon’s primary was relevant in this process and important because it was one of the last prior to the nominating conventions. In 1960 John Kennedy defeated Hubert Humphrey by 56% to 44% in the Oregon primary and he was chosen the nominee at the Democratic National Convention. I can’t remember when Oregon’s May primary was last relevant and important. The party conventions don’t decide anything and are now orchestrated political infomercials and with the exception of the acceptance speeches by the candidates.
Today, Iowa and New Hampshire are but two small islands in a sea of campaign cash and expenditures driven by the attitudes and resources of the interest groups, business and labor groups that have come to dominate the agendas of the Democratic and Republican Parties. This money has been employed in most instances to attack the character and positions of opposing candidates. Attack advertising is sadly effective and it depresses voter interest and participation. The not so surprising result is that most often the candidates with the most extreme points of view are our nominees not only for President but for Congress and the state legislature as well.
In addition, this perpetual campaign feeds the 24 hour news cycle and dominates it. Combined with the impact of the internet and digital media it has changed the profession of journalism and not for the better. Print journalism that was the source of quality in depth reporting on major issues such as the health of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense and foreign policy, transportation and economic policy is now significantly curtailed. Even greater attention is also placed on the national government instead of state and local issues where we as citizens have a greater opportunity to be involved and make improvements.
So what to do? Frankly, having just witnessed Canada’s recently six week national campaign resulting in a new government with specific new policy goals and a majority of its parliament ready to take action and be accountable for it I am seriously interested in a U.S. constitutional amendment to select our chief executive in a different way. I believe it would be better than trying to draft a constitutional amendment to take the money out of presidential politics or artificially shorten the campaign.
What I really long for is the day when more Americans embrace the words from President Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural speech, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
Post a Comment